Judgment:
1. The petitioner is the management in I.D.No.79/1993 before the Labour Court, Kollam. He is challenging Ext.P8 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The dispute referred for adjudication was: "Denial of employment to Smt.Visalakshy Amma, Peeling worker with effect from 1.2.90"
2. Before the Labour Court the workman contended that she was employed in the petitioner's cashew factory till 1990 and she was taken seriously ill, as a result of which, she had been undergoing treatment for one-and-a-half-years and when she reported for duty after the illness, she was denied employment. The petitioner management took the contention that he became the owner of the cashew factory only with effect from 1993, on which date the workman was not employed in the factory. He contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the workman involved. After taking evidence, relying on the documents produced by the petitioner himself, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was an employee of the petitioner and he unjustly denied employment to the workman involved. Consequently, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with back wages from 1.2.1990. That award is under challenge before me.
3. This writ petition was filed on 1.6.2005. The workman involved died during the pendency of the writ petition on 24.9.2007. Subsequently, the husband of the workman has come on record as additional 3rd respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the finding of the Labour Court is not in accordance with the evidence. He would submit that the finding that the workman was actually employed by the petitioner is totally perverse and, therefore, is unsustainable. He would raise a further contention that even otherwise, as evidenced by the documents produced along with the reply affidavit in the writ petition; the workman was employed elsewhere for quite some time. He would further submit that the finding in the award has to be set aside and it should be held that the workman is not entitled to any relief in the industrial dispute.
5. The counsel for respondents 1 and 3 would contend that it is based on the documents produced by the management himself that the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman was actually employed by the petitioner and as such, there is no merit in the contention that the findings are perverse.
6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
7. I have gone through the award carefully. I find that the same is a very well-written award considering the evidence adduced before the Labour Court. Evidence was discussed in detail and it was based on the documents produced by the petitioner himself that theLabour Court had entered a finding that the workman was actually employed by the petitioner and the workman was denied employment unjustly. There is nothing perverse in such finding. Even if a different view is also possible, on the evidence, insofar as the view taken is not perverse, I cannot interfere with those findings in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with such a well-written award.
8. The petitioner would raise a contention that in view of the documents now produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it should be found that the workman was for some time employed elsewhere and therefore the award of backwages is illegal. I do not think that I can validly consider the contention based on those documents at this distance of time to interfere with the award when those documents relate to a period prior to the reference of the dispute itself and if the petitioner had such a contention, he should have produced those documents before the Labour Court and proved the same in accordance with law. In any event, if I am to rely on those documents, I have to necessarily remand the matter to the Labour Court giving the petitioner opportunity to produce those documents before the Labour Court and to prove the same in accordance with law with liberty to respondents 1 and 3 to controvert the same. I am of opinion that such a course of action is not feasible in the facts and circumstances of the case, insofar as the workman is no more and the question of reinstatement does not arise. What can be done now is only to fix compensation and direct the petitioner to pay the same to the legal heirs of the workman. On the question of compensation payable itself, the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 are unable to come to an agreement. In fact, earlier, after hearing the matter on 31.3.2010, I had adjourned the matter to enable the parties to explore the possibilities of a settlement on the compensation payable. But it appears that parties were not able to agree on an amount. Therefore, I heard the parties on the question of payment of compensation. After hearing both parties and considering the material relied upon by both sides, I am satisfied that an amount of ` 50,000 as compensation would be just and reasonable in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while confirming the findings in Ext.P8 award, I direct that instead of reinstatement, the petitioner shall pay an amount of ` 50,000 to the 3rd respondent as compensation within one month from today. If the amount is not so paid within one month, that amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the date of Ext.P8 award, viz. 26.7.2004.